Kommissar Hjuler

Welcome!

Hello, Kommissar Hjuler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Fluxporn, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fluxporn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fluxporn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

helping you understand Wikipedia

Hi, I went to this page because this is where we should discuss any issues and where I can help you in the best possible way, to let you learn about Wikipedia. Being the subject of a Wikipedia article that has been nominated for deletion, and being inexperienced as a WP editor, is an unfortunate combination. I'll try to help as much as you can, but step number one is that you should always log in before you post anything on WP (until you are experienced enough to know when you want to post anonymously). I will not follow you around from IP to IP; I am trying to help, but if you can't follow this simple piece of advice I don't see how you can be helped. Here's hoping that you can. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try to follow, it is crazy, in a way, the article was nice the way it was, before I changed it, nice enough, haha, your helb is welcome, what tipps can you give me now, am I allowed to take awy some info and is it better to take away some of the info? Or is it better to hold still, do nothing, I am in fear, that the article will be removed then,

Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you took the first step, which is logging in. This will make things much easier. The next thing is to learn how to participate in discussions, including layout. For example, I answered your comment here by adding a ":" before my entry. This will cause my entry to be indented. Now if you want to answer this directly, you would add "::" before your entry, and so on (at some point, we would reach the right edge of the screen, but I'll explain that when we get there). Another way to do something similar is to use "*" instead of ":", which is what sometimes happens in the more formal discussions, like the deletion discussion. Have a look at the way I interacted with the other guy, both in the way it looks in the final version, and how it's done in the "source code" (the black-on-white that appears when you click on "edit"; where you enter your text). Have a look here and here for some basics (you don't need to know everything on that page; it may look a little overwhelming at first); the links at the very top here (the welcome message) will also provide some pointers to get started. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It would also be very useful if you took a moment to have a look at the guidelines Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, and also to look at some examples on what these discussions look like: For example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_March_30 (just drew this day randomly, there are innumerable examples in the archives). -- Nczempin (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As regards what you should do with the article, there are two things, which are (mostly) unrelated: The question of WP:Notability, and the question of the quality of the article, including a possible WP:COI. To keep your article from being deleted, you need to demonstrate notability first and foremost. You seemed to try that in some of the comments you made, but it would help immensely if you would format them in a more readable way, or let's say, a more traditional WP way. It helps of course if the article clearly demonstrates notability and doesn't arouse suspicions of WP:COI. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that its content should, as far as possible, be based on reliable sources. So if, like you said, your work (or an interview with you etc.) has been e. g. published in a print magazine, by citing this print source properly you would take one more step both to demonstrate notability and for the article to be taken more seriously (which is un undeniable factor in some deletion discussions; many will say "in its current shape, the article is not useable for WP"). So one suggestion would be: Remove anything that could be perceived as a personal opinion, remove anything that would be hard to provide evidence for, stay with the basic facts as much as possible. When stuff is removed, it doesn't disappear, so once you have more experience (or a more experienced editor steps in to work on the article a little bit), those things can easily be added back (with proper citations etc.). -- Nczempin (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, I was logged inbefore, but did not know how to sign! Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are very helpful to me, how can I thank you for this? Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. "Schon okay." -- Nczempin (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some pages to help on understanding how biographies of living people are handled

Here are some pages that will help you understand that biographies of living people are treated a little more carefully than, say, articles on the Electric motor: WP:BLP, WP:AUTOBIO. And I hope you have taken a good look at WP:COI (which, as I said before, may become an issue in case the article is _not_ deleted) and try to declare your possible COIs on your user page. People will question your motivation if you only ever edit the article(s) about you and/or your work (this even happens when someone has a very focused area of interest, regardless of whether there is an actual COI or not); if you are seen as someone who regularly contributes to various areas of Wikipedia and happens to occasionally clarify some fact about himself or remove some unsourced claim, people will treat you differently than if you are perceived as a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I haven't checked if either is the case, just letting you know from a general perspective. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

fluxporn deletion

It is very possible that the fluxporn article can be re-created in a less objectionable way: The reason it was deleted was not because it was considered not notable (no-one has commented on this question in either way), but because it seemed to be a straight copy of some other web site, with a possible copyright violation. Since Wikipedia has to be very careful to avoid such violations, we "speed-delete" (delete without discussion) possible cases (sometimes automatically, as seems to be the case here). This will most likely have a jarring effect on whoever created the article, but the best way forward is usually to read the comment related to the speed-deletion and examine whether it is possible to remedy the complaints. For example, it is quite possible that you copied text from a web page where the owner has given (or would give) permission for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The onus to demonstrate this (or to take the necessary steps to ensure this) is on the creator/copier though, and not on Wikipedia. There are numerous resources available for help on these matters. But I do recommend that (in case you want to create the article, which may be a bad idea for other reasons such as WP:COI you wait until the decision on the Kommissar Hjuler deletion is through. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"who decides which pages get deleted"

In various comments you asked "who decides which pages get deleted". The general answer to almost every decision on WP is: We use a principle called Wikipedia:Consensus. For deletion in particular, have a look here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them here (I am "watching" this page), or use any of the other ways to get help on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Questions. I hope I'm not bombarding you with all these pages to read, that you will see them as helping you to understand WP and how to contribute. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

just in case: potential COI of "Frau"

I'm telling you now, not because I have any particular reason to believe it is the case, but simply to help you avoid a possible issue: If your wife "Frau" (sorry I don't recall her artist name) also has an account on WP, she would be subject to WP:COI just as much as you are, so it would be beneficial to use the guidelines described there to declare the potential COI. Sorry about all the 3LA, I try to make sure that I've spelled them out fully before using them, but the easiest way for you to find out what they mean would be to click on the link and read at least the first paragraph or so. Some of these are such basic principles of WP that we just don't want to write them out 1000s of times :-) . -- Nczempin (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

getting help for arguing the deletion case

It is not inappropriate to look at the history of the page to see who has contributed significantly to the article, and notify them that the article's deletion is being discussed. I would stick to actual usernames, perhaps the article's creator and a few that come up high in the list of contributors. It's best to leave them a message that's as neutral as possible. For example:

Hi, I've noticed that you contributed to the article Kommissar Hjuler. I just wanted to inform you that the article is currently in a discussion about its deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kommissar Hjuler. [and add your signature here instead of mine]. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

using edit summary

One thing I've noticed you need to know: When you make a change in Wikipedia, most importantly if you make a change to an article, you need to provide an edit summary. I will auto-send something with all the necessary info in my next message (it's easier for me, that way I don't have to dig out all the relevant links and statements. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Kommissar Hjuler. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Nczempin (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was you who did some recent changes to the article, without having logged in. And still not providing an edit summary. Perhaps it would be a good ide to leave the article alone for now; you may be making things worse otherwise. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For edit summaries, it is good practice to summarize what you did and explain why, if necessary. Don't sign in the edit summary, (it is not necessary, because the history tracks who did what change; signatures are only required for Talk pages, where it is necessary to see who said what when on the page itself) and don't just say something like "changed", because that is self-evident. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I filled in the latest changes in the file edit summary, on top of the safe buttom, signed each change, notz sure, where they are shown by now.Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is where you see the effect of the edit summary entries: [1]. Each page (including talk pages) has a "history", which you can access by following a link on the top left side of the page. You can also see the effect of editing without having signed in there. Again, don't sign in the edit summary, just in the actual content of talk pages such as this one. When you change an individual section, the edit summary already has the name of the section. You are meant to provide the additional information on what you changed (the section name helping to show in what area your change was made). -- Nczempin (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"other artists of my class"

It is a good idea for any article author to compare the article he is working on with other articles on similar subjects. It is an even better idea to look at similar articles which are considered to be among the better articles of Wikipedia: There are several WikiProjects, each of which focuses on some topic such as Electronics or perhaps musicians. Articles can be marked to belong to one or more of these projects. Members of these projects (or, withing reason, anyone) can then assess these articles, usually on quality and importance (not all wikiprojects use both categories). One of the reasons for this is so that people are encouraged to improve the more important articles first. Why am I telling you this? Well, if you are already aware of some other artists or musicians comparable to you, you can go to their pages, and on the talk pages you can sometimes find them listed as belonging to one or more WikiProjects. You can then go to that WikiProject and find the highest-quality articles on similar subjects. The top articles in Wikipedia are called Featured Articles. So if you find articles with subjects that are similar to your article and that are featured, you can find good hints on what the WP community would expect your article to eventually look like. If you can give me some examples for "artists in your class" or "musicians in your class" who have articles on WP, I could try and help you with finding the high-quality articles I speak of. Note that I'm pretty much giving you a "crash course" in WP; nobody expects you to internalise everything right away. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, you are very helpful to me, and I do not know, how to thank you. I have to say that I am sorry for the changes my artists ego let me do with the arcticle formerly existing, and I have to say, that I now understand the idea of deleting the article, I can only hope, that my changes now will lead to a result, everyone of you can accept. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

COI notice

Hello Kommissar Hjuler. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kommissar Hjuler, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Millahnna (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In particular, take note of WP:SCOIC -- Nczempin (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A question of identity

Are you, in fact Kommissar Hjuler? Apart from conflict of interest issues, if you are not, then your username is misleading and needs to be changed. If you are, then the conflict of interest issues raised above become more serious, but your username is fine. Please reply here to clarify the situation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that he is not. So: Yes, he is. -- Nczempin (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am Kommissar Hjuler, this is also by now my originals stage name, given by Community Flensburg, so I can officically sign with this name. I am sorry for all the trouble I caused here, I hope I will be anle to get the article into the neutral view it had, before I added some info. But in a way, the info added was usefull, I think. ´

If anyone of you has better ideas of text terms, feel free to change some text passages, not sure yet, if five photos are too many photos, need all your advices.

I see, that it is always a problem to work on ones own article, but I think, several more artist do so.

I am really a police officer, not only artist, whereas I do simple work at police, too simple for an officer, but this allowes me to spend more energy for the music and the fine arts.

Thanks to Nczempin for all the help!Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was to discuss things like photos at article discussion page, not this user page. This page here is for discussing things that pertain to you as a user, for example if you accidentally removed a reference on Transistor, you may get notified here. Anything someone writes here will also appear as "you have received a message" on the top of the next Wikipedia page you view, if you're logged in (and if you're not logged in, it will appear at your IP address' talk page, which may vary from day to day). You can also add pages to your "watchlist", so that you can see any changes that were made by other people.

You did reply to the "question of identity". The original poster of that message may be watching this page for answers. Or perhaps he is waiting for a reply on his talk page. It is usually preferable to keep discussions on one page only, so there is the concept of "talkback"; placing just a note that you replied to his message here on your own page. If you look at my talk page, you will see that I stated my preference for others to use in communicating with me. You can check whether the original poster also has such a preference, and if he doesn't say "don't leave talkbacks; I will watch your page if I left you a message", then you can leave him a talkback. There is an example of using talkbacks on my talk page. Feel free to send me a talkback (after you've replied here) for testing, even though it's not strictly necessary (because I have this page in my watchlist). -- Nczempin (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

still signing edit summaries

While it is commendable that you seem to be using the edit summaries now, please don't put ~~~~ at the end of them. Only at the end of talk page edits, in the main text, never in the edit summary. And it seems I promptly forgot to sign my own comment here on the talk page. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks as I am not getting through to you on this, I don't know what else to say. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I really have to thank you! How long such a banner normally is at top of an article? If you have some ideas for a re-writing of passages, feel free to do so, Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will offer suggestions (or even actively change things) once the deletion discussion is over; for now I am trying to stay on the sidelines, just helping you with some general principles of Wikipedia editing. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia is an intersting system, one can enter the complete system by very simple steps, and one can become a deathly virus, before one even recognizes this fact. haha. I learned a lot by your advices, and I think, I will better take away last two photos. In a way all Users are a bid involved into the themes of articles, for they normally start articles, when they like a subject. Astonishing that the polices work that good. Ah, if I write her in the text and sign the text, shall I additionally sign the edit summary as well? Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You should never sign in the edit summary. It is completely useless, because the ~~~~ will not be substituted by date and signature. People who can see the edit summary (in the page history) will already see who has done the edit. They cannot see (other than in the history, but that will only give the relative change, and it is usually not possible to follow the discussion via the history) who said what when people simply add text to a discussion. Which is why we have bots that do it automatically in those (hopefully few, but most everyone forgets every once in a while) cases where one forgot. People who do it repeatedly will get a message from a bot on their talk page. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"how long is a banner at the top of the article"

Tags of any kind are usually meant to stay until the issue they mention is resolved satisfactorily. So usually an editor will work on handling the issue, and then say in the edit summary that he is removing the tag because the issue was resolved. The "currently under deletion discussion" tag will stay there until the discussion is over (usually a week, longer in difficult cases where there is a lot of controversial discussion, so no consensus is reached). Note that these tags are not part of the actual article, as you can see when you e. g. "download as PDF" or look at a "printable version" -- Nczempin (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

how to format "threads" in discussion pages

Please take a look at WP:TOPPOST (slightly misleading title as it addresses more than "top-posting" (which you don't seem to be doing), which says:

• Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.).

-- Nczempin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a nice introduction video at the help page. -- Nczempin (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Philipp Graffham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philipp Graffham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philipp Graffham until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Beach drifter (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

and I just wanted to add an article on Keith A. Buchholz as well, he is not mentioned here for me, hard for me to understand, that there is no article on him at wikipedia, he is one of the most important artist in fluxus at the moment. Possibly at the moment better for me, someone else focusses on him. During Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not sign in edit summary again, I am mainly at work when writing here, so have few time to read all info by you, it is a bombardement of short terms and links to rules, but this one now got through to me. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was absolutely correct, it was my fault to write an article on an artist known at local area only, possibly well known and really active there, at en.wikipedia, this was the wrong place for the article. I now see the reasons. Learning by doing is a difficult way, but I am learning, and I get good advices here.Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ignoring suggestions on basic principles

I have informed you of numerous things you should be careful about, yet you seem to be ignoring this advice (see my many entries above, many of which seem to have had no effect). Let me give you some perspective: If the community decides to keep the article (and to be honest I found it hard to find reliable sources, pretty much the Wire magazine article seems to be the only one), the next big issue will be your WP:COI. While I don't have a crystal ball, I think that a large part of how other editors will judge whether you are able to deal with these issues will be how well you are able to use basic WP principles, or at least how well you are able to change your ways when asked. If you are not able to learn the most basic principles as how to thread your talk entries or how to use edit summaries, I'm afraid that many WP editors will not see that as supporting evidence that you can usefully contribute to the page despite your WP:COI. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, just wrote at your Users page some lines. I simply expect some references to be much better, as they are. So my article at Philipp Graffham will be deleted, I think. Reliable info is always a problem, we had the same problems with getting our stage names from comunity, we had to bring reliable sources, and today a lot of "references" are at blogs or websites. Here it was not the problem, for we have lot of catalogues on exhibitions, magazines with interviews, that we could show. I will better keep away from article now, if it gets deleted it gets deleted. And possibly someone else will write an article in some years. Isn't Discogs a good reference? I expected it to be, we have that lot of LP contracts, and mainly the LPs are mentioned at Discogs as a kind of information platform on releases. I was told by record dealers that Discogs has become the main info system on music releases. Possibly I have a wront sight on notability, this is possible as well, but when I started editing, the article on me was longer as now. Allthough there is by now better info. Possibly simply, for no one focussed on it, for I was not involved. To me it sounds a bid astonishing now, that only the wire is a good reference, I found articles on artist we know, that have not really better references as we have, for instance Lasse Marhaug, we play with him in May, if I compare this article to the article on him, I do nnot see, what is wrong with my article. Just one example. Not sure, how to make the references on the releases in music to be really reliable or if I have to make any exhibition, film presentation any concert with a reference, the list of references will be long. Other artists of our "class" do not have that lot of references, and the info is seen as reliable, I think. As a NO!art thinker, I also ask myself, who rules a system. A discussion on this article for instance needs more Users talking about it. Two users here stated, they know us, one owns the CD on Intransitive, he stated, one simply stated, he knows us as middle class artist couple. But to the main point of reliability or references it is not helpful. As police officer I know, that facts need to be regarded by a court. As mentioned, astonishing to me, that a lot of articles here on other artists are not bannered for decision, for I know these artists and can compare us to them, as I can compare Cecil Touchon to Keith A. Buchholz, they both have the same notability, I expect keith to be the more important artist to fluxus today, for I know his activity at OPEN FLUXUS, but cecil was theone, who presented some books, books about Keith as well, and keith is not mentioned here, whereas Cecil has tons of info. The references are the problem. Mama Baer and I possibly cannot show that good enough references, this does not mean, that we are not that notable, that simply means, we made a mistake with the references. TEST CARD is one of the most important magazines for the intellectual scene at germany, authors, literates read this book, possibly this is a good reference as well. I also expected artlout:com for a good reference, this online magazine has a high cultural standard here, we have been named at sleeve of issue 04:08 for the interview we gave, have been one of the four title stories. Also to have a CD as one of the 15 best albums of the year 2009 at The Wire shows, that we exist. If you state, that only THE WIRE is a refernce, that can be accepted here up to now, I do not know, how to bring more references. We have been reviewed yb that lot of magazines in Europe, in the USA, we do not have all reviews. We were told, that at US Magazine Decibel we have been mentioned at an article. Two denish metal bands contacted us, we never read the article. These bands wanted to play with us. Haha. With Kusari Gama kill, one of the bands we play in Copenhagen this year, not sure, how it work to combine us and them. But I have recognized, that the references are the probblem, and I am not sure, how to bring better references at the moment. We also never read the article at US Magazine ARTHUR, when Thurston Moore referd to us as one of the most interesting groups active at the moment, I cannot state the issue and site of the article. Possibly I shall ask Thurston to refer to this. We got in contact with Thurston after this article, we have a split release out at Goaty USA, he contributed a track he made for us called Schwarze Polizei. I expect Discogs to be enough reference for the existence of this work, but not sure yet.

I do not want to ignore your advices, possibly I did it and do it again, as mentioned at your talk site, I am a bid helpless, and not used to talk here, noit sure, how to talk.

I can only say for sure, that the articles on us are notable information, compared to other articles on other artists as notable. I must have done something wrong with the references, and I do not really see, what I can do better. From my sight the arcticle on me has had not that good references, before I started my edit, but was reliable to all users for years. AndI am not sure, what the fault is now, lots of other articles can be bannered in the same way, for the references are not better to my opinion.

I am not sure, if Phillip Graffham is notable enought. I expect Keith A. Buchholz to be as notable as Cecil Touchon. I expect The New Blockaders to be notabel here, for sure.

Is it better to make the article shorter again? Your helpless little Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a brief note: I wasn't talking about the article, I was talking about never sign inside an edit summary and Use threading in discussions. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Helpless again, I just wrote at your talk site. For I could not find this message here at all my talks. Here it is again, maybe only shown after an answere. You wrote, I can contact you via email at toolbox, but I did not find it. possibly you can email me.

You live at UK? Possibly you will be nearby a venue we play at during the next week, starting a promotion tour for our latest LP with Ninni Morgia and Silvia Kastel. dates are at our website. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not sign in edit summary again, I am mainly at work when writing here, so have few time to read all info by you, it is a bombardement of short terms and links to rules, but this one now got through to me. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2011 Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I live in Munich, as you can see on my user page. I sent you an email, because it seems that you cannot send emails via Wikipedia (I don't know what the process is for that, because I can send them. Probably the function has to be approved first). Regarding the messages about edit summary signing and using threads, it's all right here on the page, with separate sections. I can see how it feels like a bombardment, but some of it is very basic usage that you really need to do. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just made a few changes, due to the notability, but to me it feels, as if this sounds a bid like a too big ego of mine. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now for dealing with the conflict of interest.

The first thing you should do is to read WP:COI and Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, by email if it helps. I would also strongly suggest that you declare your COI on your user page, and that you are aware of and want to comply with the guidelines. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COI obvious to everyone here

My COI with the artcile on Kommissar Hjuler and on Mama Baer, my wife, is obvious to everyone, due to my Users name. I was not used to the rules here, but this was my fault, when starting an edit. The article here on my person was not showing all current information, I do not now the edititor, I found out about edit function, then added latest news on me. Only true news, but the references were not good, I learned about this as well in the last days. Wikipedia shall not be a promotional site for my person, it shall simply reflect the info on us, that is true. I now try to see from a distance, how to write down all info fitting to the rules. Everyone here shall test, if I am objective enough in my formulations, if not, I ask for your help instead of an deletion proecedere first. And I will listen to you and take any help I can get. The info here on us is true, so any suggestions by Users are helpful to me, to show in a distant view, that I am telling the truth.

I am supposed that a lot of artists are in COI with articles, for the system allowes anyone here to become a User and to work with texts. My User name is evident for the conflict, and I hope this shows you, that I was acting in good will for all changes, otherwise I would have called me different as a User. The system to me seemingly workt the way, that Users create artciles on subjects they new and like, so any user in a way has a COI, to me her it is evident.

Please discuss all points here that are important for me, to see, how I can handle best the COI, to get aware of it. I cannot get ware of it, but I possibly can show to you, that I can be objective. I am a police officer and I am used to being objective, especially when I am at the focus of people.

As mentioned at the talk about the notability, if I simply take away certain points here, I could become not relevant enought, not notable enough for an article here. I am supposed tha en.wikipedia is the correct platform for me and mama baer to be mentioned, we work all over the world at same time, we worked on all continents so far, we have contacts from several contries, not only from Germany, I would suggest that we work more outside Germany as inside germany. The one who once started the article on me here at en.wiki must have had this in mind.

So if you will comment here, please concider, that the information stated is correct, but that the terms of statement or refernce might be chosen in a wrong way.

I will do my best to be as neutral as possible.

One important thing: Possibly on is able to discuss the COI on the articles of Kommissar Hjuler and of Mama BAer at ONE TALK Side, not sure, if an Administrator can manage this. We are known in the same way, we often handle as one person, some performances we called ZWEI EINEPERSON or EINE ZWEIPERSON; because we always work together, also for our solo projects, we share all profiles like facebook, myspace, ..., we are really conected like a system.

Mama Baer's English is too bad, as if she could write her, so any comments are by me.

So, the facts are true, the way of refering to them might be completely wrong by me, and I need your help, to make best references.

Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The best place to discuss your conflict of interest is your user page (i. e. User: Kommissar Hjuler (where you should declare your COI) and your user talk page (i. e. this page right here), where people can discuss with you. In addition, when you want to make edits that go beyond simple obvious ones (like they are described in the WP:COI guidelines, you should request edits on the talk pages of the articles, such as Talk: Kommissar Hjuler and Talk: Mama Baer. It's probably best to leave the deletion discussion page alone, so that it can be closed in due course. -- Nczempin (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Conflicts at KOMMISSAR HJULER / Mama Baer and the COI

I am curious, if any Users are able to read the article that formerly was written on Kommissar Hjuler, for I just got some terms in mind and was a bid amused. The text was originally written in a smug style, not really refering to what I did, just telling how I work, a decription of the way I create assemblages with a personal relation by using peronal things like used condom by us or menstrual blood by Mama Baer (Mama BAer did not like to have this mentioned at wikipedia, in a way), also a decription on the music we or I do, with a hint to ICA London exhibition. This former article everyone here would have seen as COI-related by the author, and thgis is a thing I want to refer to: Any articles here are written by Users that come across a subject they "like" (my opinion). They see, if it is notable, the start an article. Some are written factual style, some are in a more personal style, and I think this depends on the writer, possibly a writer with an interst into the subject wants to show his interst in the terms he use to descibe the subject (my opinion). The former author (or authors, the articles has been changed several times before) was seemingly a person, that knew and liked us, for the style to me sounded promotional. The article now is written in an object style, a result of the CIO that is eminent to me now. But the article Kommissar Hjuler and also the Article Mama Baer deals with facts, in a way now lists facts, and I would - with the few experience I got here in the last days and the help by other Users - today stated, that the older article was more evident of a CIO conflict as the article now is. BUT (Monty Python's Flying Cicus would state: Und this is a big BUT) the first article did not present enough facts to make me notable, the article focussed on the art and the music, not on the results of this work (the exhibitions, the nomination of films or performances at festivals, the NO!art Movement involvement, the lot of album contracts we have today with independent labels, and the article did not gave enough relevant references as well, I am supposed today. If any User would have asked for the formerly existing article, if Kommissar Hjuler is notable, the artcile wouzld have been deleted. I am sure. To find the correct references is always a problem, we are "present at the world" with our art at a time, that blogs or myspace and facebook are used even more as printed matter, especially for the fluxus scene (See for instance the FluxFests Cecil Touchon and Keith A, Buchholz curate, sic big events at USA, at the best Museums, but only few information, and this depends mainly on the curators. I think, lateron Cecil will write in a fluxbook about the events, but these books are often self-published.), I now tried and still try my best to bring the correct references to all fact named at the articles, and it is good for you to have a close view on what I am doing, so I have to make evident, that I only presented facts, facts, facts. If you see the articles, please have in mnd, that the events mentioned are correct, and if you have any idea, how to get better references, please do so, this is not my article, anyone here can do changes. At the moment it seems to me, as if it is my article, also a CIO conflict.

And if you think of the CIO please think about an article you wrote on a subject you prefer, you really like, wasn't there a slight CIO conflict? Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

NO!Art

After having spoken to Clayton Patterson and to Dietmar Kirves, the leaders of the NO!art Movement today, I stated a question to the author of NO!Art article. I am not sure, if such "discussions" are allowed, if not, it can become deleted. Another question is, the NO!art now is in trouble with the Boris Lurie Art Foundation, the B.L.A.F. has set a "Trade mark" at the term NO!Art (here also with capital letter), and the leaders today were now confrontated with the lawyers, who told them to stop the NO!art website. Both were leading the NO!art since 1999, and up to 2008 together with Boris Lurie, who told them to lead the movement! I wrote more than hundred emails to local magazines, and I got only one respionse by german TV Magazine MONITOR, that they are at the moment not interested into reviewing on this problem, espceially for they see it mainly as an US-Problem. The NO!art has a fixed haed quarter at Germany, and members are working all over the world. I have set up a German and an English letter to the trade mark office to tell them, that Dietmar and Clayton have older rights. Dietmar and Clayton hopefully sent the letter, they claimed, they would do. My question here and now is, am I allowed to start a discussion on this point "name of artists movement as trade mark?" here, at discussion side of NO!Art article? Clayton says, that the NO!art now needs any press reports on this problem. Some info on the problem is at the website of the NO!art. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Violet Storm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violet Storm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Storm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foltergaul

The article Foltergaul has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable author; significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR for lack of significant works. Article is cited to WP:SPIP sources such as amazon.de. No de.wiki article exits for either name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lena Nitro

The article Lena Nitro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)